Saturday, February 12, 2011

When a guy, let's take Bob S. for example, misrepresents what his opponent says and calls the opponent a liar for saying it, that's pretty shabby. But Bob is just a small fish in a medium-sized pool of gun bloggers. Of course the big bloggers do the same thing. And where did they all learn this arguing technique. Well, it's a good bet they learned it from same place they learned that criminals will ALWAYS get guns and that guns in the home make you safer and that owning a gun is a natural human right.

The Media and the political elites want us to believe that if we just pass another law or two we can stop a madman bent on violence. That's dishonest. And you know it is.

Switzerland in 2008 had a rate of 0.7 murders per 100,000 people, compared to 1.4 for France, 1.2 for England & Wales and 5.2 for the U.S.

Just these few statistics are enough to construct just about any kind of structure you want. Some folks love to do that and pretend that their conclusions are the only right ones.

One thing I'll say is this, Switzerland has seven times fewer murders than the U.S., per capita, and still they're concerned about the problem. What does that say about the pro-gun fanatics in the States who fight tooth and nail against any and every attempt to restrict guns?

The issue of carrying a weapon — a sword in the Torah and Talmud, or a gun today — came up in learning about Sabbath observance. Of course, the Talmud addresses every aspect of life, but there is no way to say “self defense” in Biblical or Rabbinic Hebrew; it’s a modern concept. The Hebrew Scriptures and Rabbinic literature simply assert that a human being will defend himself (or herself) — to paraphrase, “no one will stand by silently when threatened.”

Here's another mistake you'll often see.

One of my favorite students was an octogenarian Holocaust survivor who, in her words, “is no longer afraid to be alone at home.” She wanted a gun for years, but with her experiences she had no one she trusted. She’s no longer afraid.

Does anyone in their right mind believe that old lady is safer with a gun? The answer is yes, the biased self-serving hungry-to-justify-their-fetish guys insist she is, and believe their own bullshit. The truth is, and just think about all the 80-year-olds you've known, she's much more likely to misuse the gun by dropping it or firing prematurely or allowing a burglar to take it from her than she is to use if some day to save herself.

The interviewer asked Rabbi Bendory what convinced him to get guns. It was 9/11 and Mumbai that triggered those lurking fears that all gun owners know so well, those fears that start out with "Oh, my God, what if that happened to me?"

She and the other security employees at the Layton Walmart Supercenter had stopped a man who had unwrapped a laptop and hidden it under his clothes. Trent Allen Longton was taken into an office, where he handed over the merchandise.

When Longton was asked to sit down, he said he needed to leave. He told the group he had something on him that he couldn’t get caught with.

Poulsen watched as Longton, 25, reached to the small of his back and pulled out a gun, placed it on the side of his leg and cocked it. Poulsen announced "gun — hand" to let everyone know. Longton moved closer to the office door, where three other employees were standing. They raised their hands at the sight of the gun.

Longton stood behind assistant manager Gabriel Stewart, holding his shoulder with one hand and the gun inside his pocket with the other.

Security workers Shawn Ray and Justin Richins each grabbed Longton by an arm and spun him around. Poulsen then took the gun away from the man.

The article goes on to describe the Walmart policy about non-forcible interference with shoplifters, which supposedly these guards violated.

What's your opinion? Don't you think Mr.Longton is fortunate that the Walmart guards didn't blow him away and make a case for lethal threat the way the cops do. When he took the gun out and racked the slide, couldn't that have been considered threatening? Is there any other reason to do that?

Longton reminds me of Gary Gilmore. Did you ever read any of his biographies. He had that same attitude about shoplifting, just take what you want.

No legislator has been able to quite explain just why Florida needs a gun law (a felony with a $5 million fine) to gag physicians, even psychiatrists treating suicidal teenagers, from inquiring about firearms in the home. It’s not as if lawmakers suspected Florida doctors were compiling a secret gun registry (to feed UN invaders in black helicopters swooping down to seize Uncle Elbert’s deer rifle). No. The NRA, bored, wants to measure the far parameters of its unassailable political power.

Another inexplicable gun bill percolating through the 2011 legislative session (and endorsed by Gov. Rick Scott) would allow Florida gun slingers to tote firearms openly, in holsters. One might wonder why a state beholden to tourists, many from nations where vigilante justice is not a celebrated ideal, would want such infamy splashed across newspapers in London or Paris or Madrid or Berlin.

S.F. Gate reports on a shooting that took place in a Haight-Ashbury market in San Francisco. It seems one Kazzouh brother owned the market, another owned the gun and a third brother had a problem with anger management.

So, how shall we count this one? Another legitimate gun owner goes bad? More or less that should cover it, even if the only thing the gun owner did wrong was to let the angry brother get ahold of it.

The White House’s decision to deny an emergency order that would impose stricter regulations on rifle sales on border states was greeted with mixed feelings in the Rio Grande Valley.

In December, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — the federal agency that regulates the sale of weapons — asked the White House to expedite an order that would require dealers to report any person who purchased more than two semi-automatic rifles greater than a .22 caliber within a five-day period. The proposed requirement, aimed at stopping the illegal trafficking of guns into Mexico, would only apply to four states — Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California.

That request, however, was turned down Wednesday by the Office of Management and Budget, the Associate Press reported. Instead, the proposal will undergo a standard, three-month review period, which will open it up to public comment — something many gun-rights proponents are happy about.

The folks directly affected by this proposal have one complaint, too much red tape. Now, I don't really believe that. I would believe it if they said they don't like being told how to exercise their rights, or if they said this sets a bad precedent and will result in a sloppery slope. But, too much red tape, I don't see it.

But the bigger question for me is what is the White House up to? The long-overdue announcement by the president seems to have faded away, and now this.

Rose said Wise had a vast collection of "shiny and beautiful" guns he purchased "from all over." Wise always bragged about his gun collection - which may have totaled $2 million - and even showed it off to friends and neighbors, Rose said.

Wise often had many visitors - including landscapers and handymen among others - coming by his house, Rose said. She said Wise was probably targeted because "word got around" about his expensive collection.

Authorities say Christopher Wilson fired three shots into a 48-pound pit bull named Bear on Saturday afternoon. Wilson was called to the Cape Coral neighborhood after a fight broke out between several people.

Witnesses told police the dog was barking and jumping at the officer as tried to control the scene. Police say that Wilson initially ignored the dog but fired when the dog began lunging at him.

Even when they kill a dog, the cops use the magic word "lunge." The only problem is it doesn't make sense. When a pit bull "lunges" at you it's already too late. Immediately after the "lunge," some part of your body is in the vice-grip jaws of the dog.

So I figure what we've got here is the same thing we have in many of those cases of police shooting criminals, pre-emptive excessive force.

Up in Joe Huffman country, there was a very bad boy who got himself involved in an automobile pursuit with the police. During the chase, being a very bad boy, he shot a policeman in the face with a shotgun, I suppose trying to blow his head off. Eventually he himself was shot and injured in the crash that ended the drama and enabled his arrest.

Christopher Mark Taylor is accused of shooting Jerome Police Officer Dennis Clark, 35, Monday afternoon during a automobile pursuit that began in Jerome and went southeast into the countryside.

Taylor is currently on probation for a pair of Twin Falls County criminal convictions. In July, he was convicted for possession of a controlled substance and theft by receiving stolen property, both felonies. Fifth District Judge G. Richard Bevan levied a seven-year prison stint for the controlled substance conviction and 10 years for the theft conviction. Both were suspended for a four-year probationary term.

Now, what I want to know is how in the world can gun rights folks continue to justify the fact that guys like Christopher Mark Taylor can buy guns without having to submit to a background check? To me this is absolutely unacceptable and people who support this should be embarrassed to admit it.

Does this mean that the same folks in Arizona who claim the 2nd Amendment is inviolable, want to do away with the 14th? Those are some hypocritical, double-talking, self-serving, pseudo-patriotic miscreants down there. I'll say that.

Antonio Varela’s statement has his brother attempting to kick Kelley, but only after Kelley had approached Juan while the latter was watering plants in the Varelas’ yard.

During the altercation, Kelley yelled, “You fucking Mexican, go back to Mexico!” And later, “If you don’t go back to Mexico, you’re going to die!”Juan Varela admonished Kelley, saying, “Don’t come here and disrespect me at home. I have kids…I’ve lived here a long time. This country was Mexico before it was the U.S.”Kelley and the Varelas faced off, with Juan attempting to kick Kelley and missing. Kelley asked Juan if he wanted to die, pulled up his shirt, pulled out a gun and pointed it at both men. Kelley then shot Juan Varela, and pointed his gun at Antonio.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

On the Weird and Pissed Off site, Wraith posted about how much he enjoys Ann Barnhardt, and especially her retort to me, a "bitch-slapping" is what he called it. He concluded with this prize-winning closer.

So, for the most part, Ann is saner than most people in America today. As for my own sanity, I traded that for a bottle of single-malt Scotch some time back. ;)

My comment was this:

I'll bet that bottle of scotch went really well with your guns, too. That sounds pretty sane.

Ann's glib tough-talk on the internet is no more a sign of balls or mental soundness than it is when you do it. The fact that you're so impressed with her says more about you than it does about her.

I pointed out on my blog that when Ann said I didn't support the claim at all, she was wrong. I provided an amazing quote in which she basically said Jesus would be coming back to call all you patriots to Holy War.

To me that's pretty insane. How about you, Wraith, are you in touch with the Lord on these things too? Has the Lord told you it's OK to hate all Muslims? How about blacks and gays and liberals? You hate any of them too?

“A gunman went into the jewelry store, held it up, shot the owner, and then the gunman committed suicide,” said Jack Bennett, a spokesman for the Somerset County prosecutor’s office.

You know, the more I read these stories the more I see the similarity between the so-called lawful gun owners and the criminal gun owners. The extremists in both groups have this "you'll never take me alive, you dirty coppers" attitude.

I don't know if Michelle Malkin is a friend to gun control, but Media Matters included this in their article.

But, the most eloquent evisceration of his integrity comes from Michelle Malkin who wrote about one of his many controversies:

MALKIN: The most disturbing charge, first raised by retired University of California, Santa Barbara professor Otis Dudley Duncan and pursued by Australian computer programmer Tim Lambert, is that Lott fabricated a study claiming that 98 percent of defensive gun uses involved mere brandishing, as opposed to shooting. When Lott cited the statistic peripherally on page three of his book, he attributed it to "national surveys." In the second edition, he changed the citation to "a national survey that I conducted."

[...]

Lott claims to have lost all of his data due to a computer crash. He financed the survey himself and kept no financial records. He has forgotten the names of the students who allegedly helped with the survey and who supposedly dialed thousands of survey respondents long-distance from their own dorm rooms using survey software Lott can't identify or produce. Assuming the survey data was lost in a computer crash, it is still remarkable that Lott could not produce a single, contemporaneous scrap of paper proving the survey's existence, such as the research protocol or survey instrument.

What's your opinion? Have conservative folks who usually side with the gun rights people given up on Prof. Lott?

This article about two American citizens who were killed in Mexico puts a spotlight on something I didn't know. Americans who live in Mexico come into El Paso each day for school or work.

Carlos Mario Gonzalez Bermudez and Juan Carlos Echeverri did this five days a week during the school year. Despite being U.S. citizens, the boys lived in the cheaper, crime-ridden Juarez, commuting into El Paso to attend local private Catholic schools. This is not uncommon of students in El Paso, Texas, as 20% of those at Bermudez's school did the same, according to the AP.

For years we've been arguing about how many of the guns in Mexico come from the U.S. In a similar way we keep arguing about how many so-called legitimate gun owners are really irresponsible and unsafe. My answer to both is TOO MANY.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

In all seriousness, this is how the Marxist-totalitarian left works. Notice that there is absolutely no rebuttal offered - just the accusation of "mental illness". I would have no problem whatsoever with someone accusing me of mental illness IF they outlined WHY they suspected such. Make your case. You have my words at your disposal - use them against me. Form an argument. Use citations. Make a logical, reasoned progression using objective data and evidence. If I were you, I would probably attack it from the "extreme paranoia" angle.

In my post which generated such nonsense as "no rebuttal offered - just the accusation," I supplied a quote that should be enough for just about anybody to suspect mental illness. Feigning ignorance in this in-all-seriousness retort, Ann herself supplied the perfect explanation, "the extreme paranoia angle."

Of course, hatred of all Muslims is similar to hatred of all blacks or all gays or all liberals. I wonder what other groups you hate, Ann, and are ready to justify holy war against. I'll return the favor and supply a suggestion: start with the liberals because we're your harshest critics.

What's your opinion? Shouldn't we introduce Ann to Bob S.? He's a guy who can spin the chrome off a bumper hitch, just ask him how he interprets "turn the other cheek." I know Ann would love it.

"We don't really know why it occurred," Knoll said of the shooting. "(Of) 18 people interviewed, none of them really gave us a good indication of what happened."

Knoll said police didn't know Cranmer's whereabouts Sunday afternoon.

He is described as a white male, about 6 feet tall, 220 pounds, with light brown hair and blue eyes. He may be in a black 1998 Chevy Camaro with Kentucky tag 768 KVH, the release said. The Camaro has aftermarket chrome rims.

Cranmer should be considered armed and dangerous, Knoll said.

What's a matter with them hillbillies? Don't they know they need to arm more of the good guys? How many more shootings is it gonna take?

A Plainfield man has been charged with shooting his girlfriend during an argument outside the Hazlet diner where she worked as a waitress, authorities said today.

Jermaine Foster, 33 was arrested at a home in Linden hours after Sunday’s incident outside the Red Oak Diner on Route 35 that left Kelly Cullari, 35, of Hazlet, in critical condition.

In this case it seems the shooter was a criminal and shouldn't have had a gun anyway. But, with gun availability the way it is, anyone who wants one can have one, and many of those people can't handle the responsibility. You see, the rageful tendency to want to murder someone in a domsestic squabble is not limited to criminal gun owners. This violent personality streak afflicts many people with clean records too. The common denominator is the gun.

A 23-year-old Willingboro resident was charged Sunday in connection with the fatal shooting of his father Saturday night inside the family's Peartree Lane home, according to the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office.

According to a statement from County Prosecutor Robert Bernardi, investigators believe that Christopher Hunter shot his father, 53-year-old Roderick Hunter, multiple times with a .38-caliber handgun just after a domestic dispute involving the two parties.

Not a mention of whose gun it was or whether it was legally owned. I'd say it doesn't much matter if they were crack dealers, father and son, or if they were legitimate gun collecters. In the heat of an argument, the 23-year-old was aided in the rageful murder of his father by the availability of a gun.

Following the investigation, the mayor's office worked with the Big Reno Show organizers to help tighten their background-check requirements, and Fascio signed an agreement to implement a list of measures by Dec. 31, 2010. The show's rules now include the background requirement for all sales.

Fascio also agreed to remove the private sellers who were the subject of the 2009 videos. Fascio did not return phone messages for comment.

Though politically influential, the hunting community is increasingly unpopular. A survey published by Eurispes, a research institute, found that that less than 18% of Italians regarded shooting as an acceptable pastime.

Monday, February 7, 2011

Why do I need more than 10 rounds? Simple. Because I wanted 12, or 15, or 30. Not to mention that if round 12 saves my life then 10 just ain't gonna cut it. The moment someone brings up "need" in a gun control discussion you can be sure they mean to restrict your rights. At that point any any technical or practical justifications for your needs plays right into their hands. You've allowed them to put you at the defensive and frame the debate for their benefit. Don't make that mistake.

I commented:

Mike you live in a total fantasy world. "Not to mention that if round 12 saves my life then 10 just ain't gonna cut it."

A tough-guy fantasy world born of fear and insecurity and covered over in bluff.

I think that Jesus is fixing to ask many of us to go places that we don’t want to go and do things that we don’t want to do, including fight and die in Holy War. If your conception of a “loving God” is one who never asks anything of you, but only gives you what you want, then you need to grow the hell up. And when you have done that, feel free to come find the rest of us and join us on the line. You will be most welcome.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention where I found the incredible Ann. On The Smallest Minority, old Kevin posted this picture under the post title, Ayup, with a simple follow up, "without further commentary."
What's your opinion? Are these the kind of gun owners that inspire you with confidence in their rationality? Are these people you would trust to make life and death decisions with guns.

This is an interesting story, first because it happened in that gun paradise North Dakota, but also because in the courthouse there the metal detector was only used on occasion. That's interesting.

Another fun aspect of this story is that the bad guy failed to kill or injure people, not because there were armed guards and police nearby, but because he couldn't work the action on the gun. If he'd known of the old "locked and loaded" theory of readiness, there's no telling what would have happened.

By law, Roy Perez should not have had a gun three years ago when he shot his mother 16 times in their home in Baldwin Park, Calif., killing her, and then went next door and killed a woman and her 4-year-old daughter.

Mr. Perez, who pleaded guilty to three counts of murder and was sentenced last year to life in prison, had a history of mental health issues. As a result, even though in 2004 he legally bought the 9-millimeter Glock 26 handgun he used, at the time of the shootings his name was in a statewide law enforcement database as someone whose gun should be taken away, according to the authorities.

The article goes on to explain how overworked the cops are and how their limited manpower makes following up on the database next to impossible.

I don't buy it. I think the local cops were never motivated to undertake this addition to their workload. No civil servant would take on more unless there was no choice, but perhaps with all the attention the problem is getting now, we'll see some changes.

In California they have the structure, they just need to work it better.

In the case of Mr. Perez, Lieutenant Cowan, of Baldwin Park, said he learned that state agents had been scheduled to visit Mr. Perez to confiscate his weapon — two weeks after the rampage took place.

Meanwhile, a proposal being floated that would make clear that Utahns can openly carry firearms on college campuses is opposed by nearly two-thirds of Utah voters, according to a recent poll by The Salt Lake Tribune.The poll, conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, Inc., found that 64 percent of Utahns would oppose a proposal to allow guns to be openly carried — with or without a concealed weapons permit — in the state, including on college campuses. Twenty-nine percent would support such a measure.

He had already drawn attention a month earlier by walking around Radnor Lake State Natural area with an AK-47-like pistol he was carrying.Embody disagrees with Tennessee's gun control laws. He sued the state, arguing that Tennessee's law requiring a permit to carry a handgun is unconstitutional. A Davidson County judge ruled against him this month, but Embody filed paperwork last week asking the judge to reconsider.

WASHINGTON—President Obama delivered a 10-minute-long inaudible and untelevised speech on gun control Thursday, addressing the politically volatile topic from behind the closed doors of the Oval Office, where nobody could see or hear him. "The Second Amendment doesn't…" said Obama, who trailed off and gently whispered a number of strong, definitive statements that were muffled by the hand in front of his face. "While I understand this is an important issue to many Americans, I also believe that in the aftermath of the tragedy in Arizona, certain kinds of guns are [incoherent mumble], and that we should seriously look at [incoherent mumble]. It's the right thing to do." White House sources confirmed that it was Obama's finest speech since his one-hour silent monologue last Friday, when he outlined the growing threat of climate change and ordered the oil and automobile industries to develop renewable energy sources while cutting carbon emissions completely by 2018.

Chas, who comments over at Sebastian's blog, had this to say. I've indicated the truly hysterical part in underlining.

Step by step, we will march American gun owners down the road to elimination of any privacy in private gun sales, total registration, occasional confiscation and eventual elimination of private gun ownership. Then our government will be the only one with guns. Ha! Ha! All your guns will belong to us! Then we’ll do as we please with you, and your country too. Ha! Ha!”

This was in response to my suggesting that background checks on all gun transfers is reasonable.

At first glance, it might seem problematic that this Newsmax piece about gun regulations makes flat assertions about gun sales without referencing any data or citing any sources. But when you consider that the author of the post, John Lott, has been caught using fraudulent data, lying about it, and using a fake internet persona to tout his bogus work, the lack of specificity may actually be a positive: At least Lott didn’t fake a study to support his assertions. Unfortunately, that appears to be the result of laziness rather than a newfound commitment to the truth.

Lott asserts "Virtually no criminal guns are obtained from gun shows." He offers no data or expert opinion to support this contention.

The story is basically this. A guy with a gun and a history of alcohol problems hijacked a bus full of passangers. He made a lot of noise, but the police were eventually able to subdue him with a stun gun before anybody got hurt.

Of course the extremists will lament the fact that the bus driver wasn't armed, or one of the other passangers, but this is what caught my attention.

Flores has a criminal record that includes a drunken driving conviction in 2007 in Alexandria, Va. He was sentenced to 20 days in jail. In August, he was arrested for being drunk in public, said Arlington Police spokeswoman Crystal Nosal, who declined to release any details. Flores was convicted in October and ordered to pay $131 in fines.

Does that kind of record make him a disqualified person in North Carolina? Is drunk driving a felony?

Regardless of the answer concerning the technicalities of the law, my opinion is that people who demonstrate a propensity for alcohol related problems should never own guns. That's a no brainer.